SA Government Asks For Constitutional Review On Proposed Land Confiscations

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

I’ll bet the Zimbabweans are laughing at South Africa

I do not know if Tom Hawk would laugh if his neighbor lost his house after he lost his, but a Zimbabwean would not find happiness in a south african losing their farm even if they lost theirs, I know!

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

They are now a Third World military power - but still the strongest by far on the African continent if we exclude Egypt (whose armed forces are much more powerful).

Look, let's all be military analysts for a moment. There are roughly 4 mil whites in the RSA. That leaves a total male population of roughly 2 mil. However, Africaners only make up approximately half that number (I think most South African Boers would agree with me that the white "English" and other non black members of the population are very unlikely to join them in a suicidal revolt.) So that leaves a million males - all ages - from new-born to great grandpa. From a pure mathematics perspective that leaves us perhaps 100,000 potential guerillas? But of course the pool isn't nearly that large. Not all are fit. Many would think such a revolt was little more than a foolish quixotic form of suicide and would not participate. Others would quickly leave the country. And unlike Maoist inspired revolutions, a white resistance could not simply melt into the general population. The leader of such a revolt would be lucky to have a couple of thousand men potentially under arms. But it won't even be nearly that high. How many South Africans even have access to a weapon? The combat ratios would be infinitely worse than the Boer Commandos faced against the British in the Second Boer War, and their families would be at even higher risk of treatment far worse than the British meted out in their concentration camps. Non of that worked out particularly well. And of course, there would be no international supplier of mausers like there was at the end of the 19th century.

A guy with a rifle can indeed be an effective adversary. And I think we can all agree that the South African PHs and hunters we know would represent very fine riflemen indeed. But not for very long when being hunted by an Army and a national police force. And almost none of those guys with a rifle in the RSA have had any real military training. However "third world" any given rifle company of infantry opposing them would be in any particular fire-fight, the fire-power differential alone inevitably would be decisive.

Red Leg, with all due respect sir, but you do not have a clue what you are talking about. We are so far from this happening that its not even a discussing point at this stage.
I find it quite disturbing that something like this is even allowed to be posted, just for the sake of creating a false sense of insecurity among readers here that do not know any better.

 

[Dudders]

Marius does this mean I will be able to add a second buff for cheap as it looks like I might be the only person hunting in south Africa now

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

Marius does this mean I will be able to add a second buff for cheap as it looks like I might be the only person hunting in south Africa now

You testing me, Rosser.

 

[Red Leg]

Red Leg, with all due respect sir, but you do not have a clue what you are talking about. We are so far from this happening that its not even a discussing point at this stage.
I find it quite disturbing that something like this is even allowed to be posted, just for the sake of creating a false sense of insecurity among readers here that do not know any better.

Marius, please reread the thread. I believe that you are angry with the wrong person.

I was responding to the notion that white South Africans would potentially react with armed resistance to any attempt by their government to confiscate property. And for all the reasons that I stated above, I am absolutely certain that would not happen. If there is a flaw in that analysis, I would be happy to debate it with you. It is a subject about which I do have a clue.

As to whether or not some such draconian action like land seizures is likely by the current government - you tell me. I didn't start the discussion.

If we want to have a discussion about South Africa's long term prospects for social and economic stability, I am concerned. That is hardly an original thought with me. I suspect you are as well. Am I cancelling my hunt in South Africa in June? Of course not. Am I confident that a grandchild will be able to make the same hunt in twenty years? I am not sure..

That is not meant as a criticism of any South African in our membership - certainly not you personally. It is merely an acknowledgement of the social and economic tinderbox upon which you and your fellow citizens are trying to build a future.

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

Marius, please reread the thread. I believe that you are angry with the wrong person.

I was responding to the notion that white South Africans would potentially react with armed resistance to any attempt by their government to confiscate property. And for all the reasons that I stated above, I am absolutely certain that would not happen. If there is a flaw in that analysis, I would be happy to debate it with you. It is a subject about which I do have a clue.

As to whether or not some such draconian action like land seizures is likely by the current government - you tell me. I didn't start the discussion.

If we want to have a discussion about South Africa's long term prospects for social and economic stability, I am concerned. That is hardly an original thought with me. I suspect you are as well. Am I cancelling my hunt in South Africa in June? Of course not. Am I confident that a grandchild will be able to make the same hunt in twenty years? I am not sure..

That is not meant as a criticism of any South African in our membership - certainly not you personally. It is merely an acknowledgement of the social and economic tinderbox upon which you and your fellow citizens are trying to build a future.

Sir, then I apologise profusely for misunderstanding your post.

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

Response written by Mark Philip Malcolm Horn - London Barrister. * No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

"You can not have land expropriation without compensation. It is illegal in international law. It is contrary to a dozen treaties that South Africa has signed and ratified. As such, it is a principle that is also enshrined in South African domestic law. You can not change the Constitution therefore to make it legal - Treaty law is superior law, it always applies.

The proposal, if directed at land held by the white community, would also contravene half a dozen international treaties, notably those condemning apartheid, that South Africa since the ANC took power, has signed and ratified.

The same argument applies above, but now with the ironic twist that any such initiative would result in the ANC being condemned under international law for actions that the world would condemn as being racist.

So no, it can not be done. When Mugabe tried this, the point was litigated. These were the legal conclusions. Now, Mugabe pushed ahead, so what happened?

Well, the claims for illegal expropriation still are valid in law - at some point the Zimbabwean Government will need to pay them.

The consequence of their illegal policy is not forgotten with time. If they ever want to be re-integrated into the global community, they will need to pay.

As to the consequences of such a policy - Zimbabwe is a good example. There are no sanction on Zimbabwe. That is a myth. The only sanctions are those targeted on Mugabe and a few of his associates, and they are in place because of human rights abuses.

The economy has crashed, there is a 90% unemployment rate, for the very simple fact that Zimbabwe has shown itself to be a thief. No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

You can not run a modern economy without access to the international market, and for that you need credit. The Zimbabwean economy has declined by 70% from what it was at independence simply because no one does business with a thief.

So what would be the consequence of a policy of expropriation without compensation in South Africa? Well, as noted, such a policy would be illegal.

The international community will immediately take note that South Africa has become a rogue state. That is not too much to worry, about, its just political. There are plenty of rogue states around the world.

What would happen, however, in terms of South Africa's access to the international markets is of far more concern. South Africa would have signaled that property rights are insecure. That will mean that international investment in South Africa would come to a screeching halt.

This has been happening for many years in any event - that is why South Africa is now ranked no. 7 in gold mining, when it used to be no. 1.

It is why South Africa has a 27% unemployment rate, and a 50% youth unemployment rate. So the response could well be: "who cares, we do not need their investment". That may well indeed be true.

But, that is not where the real crisis occurs. South Africa needs access to international financial markets because it has a trade and budget deficit. It needs access to international financial markets to pay for its bloated public sector, and to pay social grants to all those unemployed people.

To raise that money, it needs the banks. Now this is where the consequences of a policy of expropriation without compensation hits home.

Banks have, as is the nature of banking, highly leveraged Balance Sheets. They lend as multiples of the assets they actually have. They need to conform with the Basel ratio's. If they have a rise in bad debt, they can easily wipe out their Balance Sheets - they then become bankrupt, and they collapse.

So what do you think will happen if land is expropriated without compensation to the Banks? The answer is, they will see a rise in bad debt, and they will collapse.

That is not the end of the story. South Africa has seen its black population rise from approximately 2.5 m in the mid 19th century, to its current level of 50 m. The 2.5 m may be taken as the sustainable level of the black population without the benefits of colonialism, and of modern agriculture.

That 2.5 m number is important, because only 13% of South Africa is suited for agriculture, and only 3% is high quality agricultural land. The vast majority of South African agricultural land requires the application of modern technology.

Farming in South Africa is highly capital intensive. Farmers depend on bank lending not only to buy their farms, but also to provide essential working capital.

So, what happens if the land is expropriated without compensation, if the banks then collapse? Well it means no one is able to provide the essential working capital. If the farms then collapse, then up to 95% of the existing black population is at risk of starvation.
The banks can not access international markets, international lenders will not lend, South Africa then descends into chaos. At point, the international community would probably intervene military to restore order. As such, South Africa would have become yet another Failed State in the traditional African mold."

 

[johnnyblues]

It all sounds either complicated or a lot of folks are spewing a lot of crap to stir things up. Either way I don't understand much of it I just hope the people in charge truly understand the consequences of their actions whatever they may be. I wish things were simpler in life and all around the world.

 

[Yaseen]

Wonder what some of our South African friends here on AH have to say about this?

We should sit back and see how this plays out.....

 

[Hogpatrol]

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

So, what happens if the land is expropriated without compensation, if the banks then collapse? Well it means no one is able to provide the essential working capital. If the farms then collapse, then up to 95% of the existing black population is at risk of starvation.
The banks can not access international markets, international lenders will not lend, South Africa then descends into chaos. At point, the international community would probably intervene military to restore order. As such, South Africa would have become yet another Failed State in the traditional African mold."

And it will all be blamed on the "WHITE MAN"!

 

[Red Leg]

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

Response written by Mark Philip Malcolm Horn - London Barrister. * No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

"You can not have land expropriation without compensation. It is illegal in international law. It is contrary to a dozen treaties that South Africa has signed and ratified. As such, it is a principle that is also enshrined in South African domestic law. You can not change the Constitution therefore to make it legal - Treaty law is superior law, it always applies.

The proposal, if directed at land held by the white community, would also contravene half a dozen international treaties, notably those condemning apartheid, that South Africa since the ANC took power, has signed and ratified.

The same argument applies above, but now with the ironic twist that any such initiative would result in the ANC being condemned under international law for actions that the world would condemn as being racist.

So no, it can not be done. When Mugabe tried this, the point was litigated. These were the legal conclusions. Now, Mugabe pushed ahead, so what happened?

Well, the claims for illegal expropriation still are valid in law - at some point the Zimbabwean Government will need to pay them.

The consequence of their illegal policy is not forgotten with time. If they ever want to be re-integrated into the global community, they will need to pay.

As to the consequences of such a policy - Zimbabwe is a good example. There are no sanction on Zimbabwe. That is a myth. The only sanctions are those targeted on Mugabe and a few of his associates, and they are in place because of human rights abuses.

The economy has crashed, there is a 90% unemployment rate, for the very simple fact that Zimbabwe has shown itself to be a thief. No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

You can not run a modern economy without access to the international market, and for that you need credit. The Zimbabwean economy has declined by 70% from what it was at independence simply because no one does business with a thief.

So what would be the consequence of a policy of expropriation without compensation in South Africa? Well, as noted, such a policy would be illegal.

The international community will immediately take note that South Africa has become a rogue state. That is not too much to worry, about, its just political. There are plenty of rogue states around the world.

What would happen, however, in terms of South Africa's access to the international markets is of far more concern. South Africa would have signaled that property rights are insecure. That will mean that international investment in South Africa would come to a screeching halt.

This has been happening for many years in any event - that is why South Africa is now ranked no. 7 in gold mining, when it used to be no. 1.

It is why South Africa has a 27% unemployment rate, and a 50% youth unemployment rate. So the response could well be: "who cares, we do not need their investment". That may well indeed be true.

But, that is not where the real crisis occurs. South Africa needs access to international financial markets because it has a trade and budget deficit. It needs access to international financial markets to pay for its bloated public sector, and to pay social grants to all those unemployed people.

To raise that money, it needs the banks. Now this is where the consequences of a policy of expropriation without compensation hits home.

Banks have, as is the nature of banking, highly leveraged Balance Sheets. They lend as multiples of the assets they actually have. They need to conform with the Basel ratio's. If they have a rise in bad debt, they can easily wipe out their Balance Sheets - they then become bankrupt, and they collapse.

So what do you think will happen if land is expropriated without compensation to the Banks? The answer is, they will see a rise in bad debt, and they will collapse.

That is not the end of the story. South Africa has seen its black population rise from approximately 2.5 m in the mid 19th century, to its current level of 50 m. The 2.5 m may be taken as the sustainable level of the black population without the benefits of colonialism, and of modern agriculture.

That 2.5 m number is important, because only 13% of South Africa is suited for agriculture, and only 3% is high quality agricultural land. The vast majority of South African agricultural land requires the application of modern technology.

Farming in South Africa is highly capital intensive. Farmers depend on bank lending not only to buy their farms, but also to provide essential working capital.

So, what happens if the land is expropriated without compensation, if the banks then collapse? Well it means no one is able to provide the essential working capital. If the farms then collapse, then up to 95% of the existing black population is at risk of starvation.
The banks can not access international markets, international lenders will not lend, South Africa then descends into chaos. At point, the international community would probably intervene military to restore order. As such, South Africa would have become yet another Failed State in the traditional African mold."

I think this analysis - particularly the economic consequences - is spot on. My only disagreement is with the anticipated moral outrage of the rest of the world at large. Other Third World countries would simply cheer on their formerly oppressed brothers in the struggle against what they regard as an imperial and colonial legacy. The Western media - particularly American media - would almost totally sympathize with any black government's action, equating white landowners to the Southern plantation class of the old American South.

As the writer notes, banking and other investment interests would vote with their feet, bringing on a real financial crisis.

An actor whom he does not mention is China. The PRC is waiting in the wings to take advantage of any instability in Southern Africa. We are already watching what amounts to a recolonization of Africa by a foreign power. They are not doing it with military forces, but with investment and waves of workers and managers. They are focused on Africa's natural resources and see stable enclaves there as a mechanism for shoring up their ever widening grip on the broader Indian ocean region. You can be sure that they will be offering economic alternatives (realistic or not) to offset the scenario painted in the article.

 

[postoak]

Come on, since when has "treaty law" been superior to other law? Any sovereign nation has the right to withdraw from any treaty -- or even ignore it -- as long as they are willing to put up with international repercussions.

 

[james cameron]

Cape Town - President Cyril Ramaphosa has said there is no reason to "panic and start beating war drums" over Parliament's decision to look at land expropriation without compensation.

Ramaphosa was on Thursday responding to the National House of Traditional Leaders debate on his address to the House this week, where the issue of land was a major theme.

The new president tried to calm fears over the National Assembly's passing of a motion to have Parliament's Constitutional Review Committee look at the feasibility of amending the "property clause" in the Constitution.

"What this moment requires is for people to engage with each other and come up with proposals that can lead to a just and sustainable outcome," Ramaphosa said.


WATCH: Land expropriation without compensation: What needs to happen to amend Constitution

"There is no reason for anyone of us to panic and start beating war drums. Farming activities must continue as normal, and investments in land and farming must continue.

"We are going to handle this matter in the way we've always handled difficult issues in our country: by dialogue, discussion, engagement, until we find good solutions that will take our country forward."

The motion, passed on Tuesday, called for the committee to review Section 25 of the Constitution, allow for public comment and input, and to report back to the National Assembly by August 31.

Ramaphosa maintained that South Africa belonged to all who live in it, black and white, and that the land process was an opportunity to make "just choices that will serve to unite the nation".

"Today we have a great opportunity to address the land question, but to address it in the way that will make sure our economy continues to grow, make sure our agricultural production keeps going up, and make sure that indeed there is food security in our country.

"South Africans must therefore navigate this issue not by fear or distrust. Their choices must reflect their hopes, not their fears."

'Desist from driving fear into the hearts of our people'

The passing of the motion has got South Africans from all walks of life and from all income groups talking, he continued.

"Some have become very hopeful, some have become very fearful. It is a question that we will continue to handle with care and responsibility as government.

"There will be no smash-and-grab of land in our country. That we will not allow," he repeated, to applause from the Old Assembly.

He further stated the matter would be resolved with comprehensive consultation.

"There are some who say there is no need to talk. There are some who continue to drive fear into the hearts of South Africans and the international community.

READ: Land expropriation without compensation: What you need to know

"Some have even been involved in sending messages to international investors, saying it is no longer safe to invest in South Africa.

"I would like to say, desist from driving fear into the hearts of our people about this matter," he said.

The matter was serious, and it was important to discuss it "in the most responsible manner".

'It's in SA's interests to have commercial farmers'

The ANC government owed it to their children to "refute the myth that Africans are not friends of commercial agriculture", he said.

"It is in our interests to have more successful commercial farmers. This administration is fully committed to provide the necessary support."

Ramaphosa said he would soon be initiating a dialogue with key stakeholders to give effect to the ANC's resolutions on land, adopted in December at its national conference.

"This is the agenda we have, and we are going to address this to make sure we come up with solutions that will resolve this matter once and for all.

"This original sin that was committed when our country was colonised must be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that takes South Africa forward."

 

[LivingTheDream]

I think you are all stirring...
And to my fellow South African alarmists...no-one is interested in your farm as such.
The Government is sitting on just over 4300 farms that has been paid for and redistributed (some of them) but this land is lying unused.
In order to redistribute it, they will expropriate it without compensation from these farmers that it was given to, and redistribute again, this time with an emphasis on productivity, which previously did not happen.

Go and read it carefully. So, some interesting clauses and conditions to it.

No one is talking about a land grab nor are comments like Zimbabweans must be laughing appropriate.

I don't make comments about the 2nd amendment and gun ownership without trying to understand the complexity of the situation. It is emotionally laden...so is land ownership, not only in Africa but also elsewhere.

Example, in Australia Aboriginals have the right to hunt on any property without permission in an attempt to compensate for some of the injustices of the past. In the US, various Indian Groups where forcibly removed as well - perhaps there is a debate to be had on that one too?

Not to get off topic but the American Indians get their own season, own quota, own subsidies for land and wildlife management. They get to sell tags to nontribal members. Not to mention numerous own use exceptions.

Now back on topic, in America the government can take your land at anytime they just have to compensate you for it, usually they do buy outs for new roads or other "greater good" projects. The value of the buyout is not necessary market determined. I don't RSA is going to confiscated farm land just to make it other farm land, but will probably see "greater good" projects.

 

[postoak]

It sounds to me as if this might be just backward to what many assumed. It sounds as if land given to blacks, who then didn't do anything with the land, will be taken away and given to someone, (maybe an international farming conglomerate, who knows) who will put it to use.

 

[Hogpatrol]

"Original sin"? The farm I hunt, without intelligent farming practices, would just be a semi-arid scrub originally settled by San people. No cash crops grow there without irrigation. Another of this farm owner's holdings is for sheep and without pasture management would only last a few years. The deed, from the 1860s, states literally, dry wasteland. What anyone didn't know was there was water eight feet down. From this, windmills sprung up and farming started. If the white man hadn't been there, it would still be dry wasteland with zero food production.

 

[Tom Hawk]

Not the white ones I can assure you.

These are the not ones I am talking about. The ones that I am talking about got their land from the Hyena known as Mubage, and ruined it and want more (His Cronies especially)

 

[BSO Dave]

"This original sin that was committed when our country was colonized must be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that takes South Africa forward."

And, within his closing comment lies the underlying narrative that really discredits anything else he said up to that point. Their mentality is that the land was "stolen" from them by white European settlers. How do they justify theft when they are the population of Africans that emigrated to RSA from other regions long after the Dutch first settled there?

I also agree with an earlier point that was made by Red Leg which was that sadly, the white Africans will be on their own here regardless. No other nation would dare defend them out of fear of being deemed racist sympathizers to a once oppressive government. They are in bad spot should things go farther south than they already are.

The hope is that they are sabre rattling to the base, and nothing serious will come of this. But, on the other hand, you can never tell how far they will take it. Never underestimate the stupidity and greed of a corrupt banana republic government. Trust me, on this. I live in Miami.

 

[Red Leg]

It sounds to me as if this might be just backward to what many assumed. It sounds as if land given to blacks, who then didn't do anything with the land, will be taken away and given to someone, (maybe an international farming conglomerate, who knows) who will put it to use.

If you are referring to Ramaphosa's comments, I don't take anything at all like that from what he said. The economically successful agricultural interests are almost all white owned. It is clear in his last statement that they will be considered part of the "original sin" that has to be "resolved".

That said, he is not entirely stupid. I think he fully understands the economic tightrope he is trying to walk. However, the teaming masses in the townships and the huge numbers of unemployed young people are becoming ever louder in demanding something. In their minds too little has changed since the collapse of apartheid. Wealth, land, and business redistribution are the rabbits left for the ruling party to pull out of their hat to try an keep the mob from turning on them.

 

[IdaRam]

I’ll bet the Zimbabweans are laughing at South Africa

The way I chose to perceive this post was more like Zimbabweans shaking their heads incredulously and laughing at the sheer folly of the idiots in power in SA. Something like, “Are you kidding me? Are you fools incapable of learning anything?”
I am certain no one is laughing at the prospect of such grave misfortune on the part of white South Africans. I am also certain the Zimbo’s and Yanks around here stand together in support of our South African friends and wish you nothing but the very best.